coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Portsmouth. In 1980 he joined the Royal Navy.
10.  In or around early 1996, he was charged, pursuant to section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (“the 1957 Act”), with three civilian offences (one under the Theft Act 1968 and two under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981). He was also charged, inter alia, on four counts of misapplication of public property contrary to section 30 of the 1957 Act. The charge sheet was signed by the convening authority, Rear Admiral N.E. Rankin (Flag Officer Portsmouth).
11.  By convening order dated 1 February 1996, the convening authority acknowledged receipt of the “circumstantial letter” and ordered the convening of a court-martial for 26 February 1996 (see paragraph 21 below). He appointed the Prosecutor by name (of lower rank and in the convening authority’s chain of command). He also appointed the President of the court-martial and the other four members by name: all were subordinate in rank to the convening officer but were not in his chain of command. The Judge Advocate was also appointed by name by the convening authority and was not in the latter’s chain of command.
12.  Advised that he could be represented by a civilian or naval lawyer, the applicant instructed a civilian lawyer, his current representative.
13.  The court-martial took place on board HMS NELSON on 18 March 1996 and the applicant pleaded guilty to all charges. Having presented evidence in mitigation of sentence, he was sentenced, inter alia, to four months’ imprisonment, to be discharged from the navy and to stoppages of pay in the sum of 2,655 pounds sterling.
14.  By letter dated 19 April 1996 the applicant was informed that his petition against sentence, which had been reviewed on behalf of the Admiralty Board by the Naval Secretary/Director General Naval Manning, had been rejected but that he could request that the petition be further considered by the Admiralty Board. 
He subsequently renewed his petition against sentence. On 17 May 1996 he was released from prison and by letter dated 7 June 1996 he was notified that his petition had been rejected.
9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bristol. In 1974 he joined the Royal Navy. At the relevant time he held a senior non-commissioned rank and was an experienced administrator. On 20 October 1995 he was informed that he was under investigation on suspicion of travel fraud. Since he was to be interviewed by the naval police, he was offered the opportunity to speak to a naval barrister. He accepted this offer, was given legal advice and confirmed that he understood the advice given.
10.  He then attended two interviews with the naval police. At the beginning of both interviews he was cautioned (section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). He declined the opportunity accorded to him to obtain legal advice and to have a legal adviser present at those interviews. He made certain admissions at his first interview and gave the investigators access to his bank accounts. On 27 November 1995 he was interviewed for a second time and then charged.
11.  The charge sheet, as approved by the convening authority listed six charges (pursuant to section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957) of obtaining property and a service by deception contrary to sections 1 and 15 of the Theft Act 1968. All charges related to the making of false representations about travel allowances.
12.  By notice dated 3 July 1996 the convening authority ordered the convening of a court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. He appointed the members of the court-martial by name. All were subordinate to the convening authority but none served within his chain of command. The Judge Advocate was appointed by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate. While the Judge Advocate was subordinate in rank to the President and both served under the Second Sea Lord, there was no command or other substantive institutional link between them.
13.  The court-martial took place on 8-10 July 1996. Once the applicant’s preliminary objections were rejected (he contested the admission of evidence from his interviews and he alleges that he challenged the composition of the court-martial), he pleaded guilty as charged. On 10 July 1996 he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
14.  By letter dated 14 January 1997, his legal representative was informed of the decision taken by the Admiralty Board to reject his petition against conviction and sentence. It was considered that his admissions in interview were not the result of oppression and that, given the seriousness of the offences, his sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1932, 1920, 1928, 1919, 1925, 1927, 1923, 1969, 1930, 1919, 1923, 1929, 1928, 1923 and 1922 respectively.
7.  On 29 July 1994 and on 16 February 1995 the Government and the Parliament passed two decisions according to which the deposits of certain categories of persons at the Savings Bank have to be index-linked. According to the decisions, the Ministry of Finance was supposed to allocate the necessary funds to the Savings Bank. However it failed to do so and the Savings Bank could not carry out the decisions of the Parliament and of the Government.
8.  In 1999-2001 the applicants lodged with the Râşcani District Court civil actions against the Ministry of Finance in which they sought compensation.
9.  By a final judgment of 17 September 2000 the court awarded Mr Gheorghe Luntre compensation of MDL 2,936[1].
10.  By a final judgment of 10 July 2000 the court awarded Ms Nina Voit compensation of MDL 2,934[2].
11.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Pavel Maloman compensation of MDL 733[3].
12.  By a final judgment of 25 August 2000 the court awarded Mr Dumitru Tcacenco compensation of MDL 734.50[4].
13.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Mihail Zverev compensation of MDL 733[5].
14.  By a final judgment of 3 May 2001 the court awarded Ms Lidia Abramov compensation of MDL 2,934[6].
15.  By a final judgment of 15 March 2001 the court awarded Ms Eudochia Volcov compensation of MDL 3,667.50[7].
16.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Ianina Atnealov compensation of MDL 1,468[8].
17.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Nina Ceaica compensation of MDL 734[9].
18.  By a final judgment of 18 October 1999 the court awarded Mr Dumitru Grişin compensation of MDL 1,446.76[10].
19.  By a final judgment of 18 October 1999 the court awarded Ms Tatiana Grişin compensation of MDL 1,301.76[11].
20.  By a final judgment of 14 December 2000 the court awarded Mr Pavel Epifanov compensation of MDL 2,130.69[12].
21.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Nadejda Cleauşev compensation of MDL 733.50[13].
22.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Ms Ecaterina Bobîlev compensation of MDL 733[14].
23.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Ivan Prozor compensation of MDL 733[15].
24.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments with the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority informed them that the judgments could not be enforced, as no funds had been provided for the enforcement of judgments by the relevant legislation within the annual State budget.
25.  On 22-30 April 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Finance.
7.  The applicant is a limited partnership company founded in 1986 and based in Helsinki.
8.  The applicant company, which was running a restaurant in Helsinki, rented the restaurant premises from an insurance company, Keskinäinen Henkivakuutusyhtiö Suomi (KHS). In 1994 it was offered the opportunity to rent more premises, which would be renovated to be suitable for restaurant use. When the renovation was finished, the applicant company found that there were excessive toilet facilities and that part of the planned restaurant facilities were missing, especially those planned to be built in the cellar. The applicant company paid 251,000 Finnish marks (approximately 42,200 euros) for the renovation expenses and the monthly rent was raised considerably. The amended rent contract had been signed before the extension work commenced.
9.  In 1997 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against KHS before a Division of the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) known as “the Housing Court” (asunto-oikeus, bostadsdomstolen). The applicant company claimed that there had been a breach of the rent contract, as the newly renovated facilities did not correspond to the original plan, on the basis of which the applicant company had signed the amended rent contract. KHS disagreed with the applicant company, arguing that even though there had originally been a plan to build restaurant facilities in the cellar, it had later proved to be impossible to build such an extension and that the applicant company had been aware of this before signing the contract (see paragraph 19 below).
10.  On 17 September 1997 the Housing Court found in favour of the insurance company, rejecting the applicant company's action for compensation in accordance with the Act on Commercial Leases.
11.  The applicant company appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus hovrätt), requesting that the District Court's decision be quashed. On 11 December 1997 the Housing Court Division of the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's decision without an oral hearing. One of the members of the Court of Appeal, M.P., was a member of the Finnish parliament at the time. He had been an expert member of the Court of Appeal since 1974. From 1987 to 1990 and from 1995 to 1998 he was also a member of parliament. For the latter period the date of election was 19 March 1995.
12.  On 9 February 1998 the applicant company applied to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) for leave to appeal, complaining, inter alia, about the lack of independence of Judge M.P., who had both legislative functions as a member of parliament and judicial functions as a member of the Court of Appeal. On 5 May 1998 the Supreme Court refused the applicant company leave to appeal.
9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Silopi.
10.  On 28 April 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having been involved in the terrorist activities of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law.
11.  On 25 May 1992 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor. He denied the allegations against him. On the same day, a judge at the Şırnak Magistrates' Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
12.  On 1 September 1992 the public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant with treason under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
13.  On 12 October 1994 the public prosecutor filed a new indictment, charging the applicant under the same provision of the Criminal Code with involvement in other terrorist activities.
14.  On 28 May 1995, upon the request of the public prosecutor, the applicant's case was joined to another case which was being considered in a different chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
15.  On 3 July 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
16.  The applicant's sentence was automatically referred to the Court of Cassation for appeal. The applicant's request for a hearing on his appeal was granted. On 27 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ankara.
10.  On 17 February 1981 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 15 April 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
11.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The prosecution requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his membership of an illegal armed organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist‑Leninist regime, contrary to Articles 146 § 1 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 31 December 1983 the applicant was released pending trial.
13.  On 11 November 1987 the court requested the public prosecutor to formulate his opinion on the charges. On 23 March 1988 the public prosecutor filed his opinion with the court.
14.  On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years and eight months' imprisonment. The applicant was also permanently debarred from public service. The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).
15.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 3953 of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case and the file was transmitted to it.
16.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation revised the judgment of the first-instance court, sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.
17.  On 23 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed from his post at the Ankara Municipality on account of his conviction.
18.  On 11 December 1996 the applicant was permitted to return to his previous post and to work as the head of the research and planning department of the municipality.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Włocławek, Poland.
5.  The applicant and her neighbours were the co-owners of real estate located in Włocławek. On 28 June 1982 the applicant filed an action with the Włocławek District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in which she requested that the co-ownership of the estate be dissolved.
6.  Prior to 19 September 1989 the court held a number of hearings and two viewings of the site. It also obtained two expert reports.
7.  On 19 September 1989 the District Court gave a decision. The neighbours (“the respondents”) appealed. On 5 July 1991 the Włocławek Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
8.  On 20 December 1991 the District Court held a hearing. On 17 November 1992 the court obtained another expert’s opinion.
9.  A hearing listed for 16 June 1993 was adjourned due to the absence of the respondents’ lawyer. On 3 August 1993 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert.
10.  The court held a further hearing on 29 April 1994. It ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. On 7 October 1994 the court held a viewing of the site. On 17 November 1994 a hearing was held. At a hearing held on 13 April 1995 the court heard evidence from an expert.
11.  On 27 April 1995 the Włocławek District Court gave a decision and dissolved the co-ownership. The respondents appealed.
12.  On 20 July 1995 the District Court refused to exempt the respondents from the court fees due for lodging the appeal. On 22 August 1995 they appealed against this decision and requested the court to grant them leave to appeal out of time. On 19 December 1995 the court granted them that leave. On 15 April 1996 the Włocławek Regional Court amended the decision of 20 July 1995 and partially exempted the respondents from the court fees.
13.  On 12 September 1996 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed the respondents’ appeal. On 18 December 1996, they lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 3 September 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
14.  On 21 September 1996 the applicant filed an action for repossession of part of the property with the Włocławek District Court. She claimed that the court in its decision of 27 April 1995 (given in the first set of proceedings), had not ordered the respondents to surrender part of the property in question to her.
15.  On 14 April 1997 the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. On 5 January 1998 the proceedings were resumed.
16.  On 28 January 1998 the trial court held a hearing. On 14 March 1998 an expert opinion was submitted to the court.
17.  On 21 April 1998 the Włocławek District Court gave judgment and granted the applicant’s claim. The defendants appealed. On 8 October 1998 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin, Germany.
6.  On 7 August 1992 her house in Slavonski Brod, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
7.  On 4 October 1995 she instituted civil proceedings before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slavonskom Brodu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.
8.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 28 September 2000.
9.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija), the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003.
6.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1939, respectively, and live in Krušedol, Serbia and Montenegro.
7.  On an uncertain date the applicants’ weekend house in Lončarica, Croatia, was damaged by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 27 October 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Grubišnom Polju) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 31 May 2000.
10.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Modrino Selo, Croatia.
7.  On 9 March 1992 the applicant’s weekend house in Sveti Petar, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Biograd na moru Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu na moru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Biograd na moru Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 4 December 2000.
10.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 16 December 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  The applicant alleged that he was infected with Hepatitis B and C following a vaccination while he was in the army.
8.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 18 January 2000.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 7 November 2003 pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).
6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Köln, Germany.
7.  In December 1992 the applicant’s business premises in Zagreb were blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 24 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property. He claimed that the property was damaged by members of the Croatian Army.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 9 December 1999.
10.  Pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 16 October 2003.
19.  The applicants, who were Moldovan nationals when the application was lodged, were born in 1952, 1955, 1961 and 1963 respectively. At the time when they lodged their application, they were detained in the Transdniestrian part of Moldova.
20.  Although detained, Mr Ilaşcu was twice elected to the Moldovan parliament, from 1994 to 2000. As a member of parliament, he was appointed to form part of the Moldovan delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. On 4 October 2000 Mr Ilaşcu acquired Romanian nationality. In December 2000 he was elected to the Senate of the Romanian parliament and appointed as a member of the Romanian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
21.  Mr Leşco and Mr Ivanţoc acquired Romanian nationality in 2001.
22.  Mr Ilaşcu was released on 5 May 2001; since then he has lived in Bucharest (Romania). The second and third applicants' homes are in Chişinău (Moldova), whereas the fourth applicant lives in Tiraspol (Transdniestria, Moldova). At present all three of them are detained in Tiraspol.
23.  In view of the fact that, in the applicants' submission, it was impossible for them to apply to the Court directly, the application was lodged by their wives, Mrs Nina Ilaşcu, Mrs Tatiana Leşco and Mrs Eudochia Ivanţoc, and by the fourth applicant's sister, Mrs Raisa Petrov-Popa.
24.  The second applicant was represented before the Court by Mr A. Tănase, of the Chişinău Bar. The other applicants were represented by Mr C. Dinu, of the Bucharest Bar, until his death in December 2002. Since January 2003 they have been represented by Mr V. Gribincea, of the Chişinău Bar.
4.  The applicant, Leokadia Guzicka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Kąty Wrocławskie, Poland.
5.  On 19 April 1994 the applicant brought a claim against her former employer, the “Perspektywa” Co-operative, to the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought the annulment of the Co-operative Board’s resolution depriving her of her membership of the co-operative, and reinstatement.
6.  On 26 February 1997 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the claim and referred the case to the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
7.  On 22 June 1998, following the applicant’s complaint, the District Court sent the case-file to the Regional Court.
8.  The first hearing was set down for 18 September 1998.
9.  On 23 October, 23 November and 21 December 1998 the court held hearings.
10.  On 29 January 1999 the court allowed the applicant’s claim.